Court Changes Rules! Who Gets the Wedding Gold?
The Supreme Court of Turkey has put an end to one of the biggest disputes in divorce cases in the country: 'Who owns the wedding jewelry?' The 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has changed its ruling, which previously stated that 'whatever is given at the wedding belongs to the woman'. Here is the precedent-setting decision by the Supreme Court that has left millions questioning.
The jewelry debates have finally been put to rest.
The issue that most occupies the courts in divorce cases is who will keep the wedding gifts... In past years, the 2nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals in Turkey ruled, based on local customs and traditions, that even the gifts or money given to the groom belonged to the bride. However, changing societal dynamics, economic conditions, and the financial needs of the institution of marriage have prompted the high court to reconsider this rule.
The Chamber recently signed a new decision, sharing in detail the reasons for this significant change. The court emphasized that assets that are not specific to women, given to provide financial support to each other while establishing a common life (such as quarter gold coins, cash, watches, etc.), cannot be considered as belonging to the woman just because they were given at the wedding.
Precedent decision from the Supreme Court: Who does the jewelry gifted at a wedding belong to?
According to the new legal interpretation; the gifts will belong to the person they are given to. Jewelry such as bracelets and necklaces that are specific to women will belong to the bride; gifts given to the groom, such as money, quarter gold, and watches, will belong to him. The following statements were included in the precedent decision of the Supreme Court:
'Considering the dynamic structure of economic and legal relations and especially; apart from jewelry specific to women at weddings, the necessity of changing our Chamber's legal interpretations in lawsuits related to items with economic value given to spouses who are in the process of establishing a common life, has emerged.
According to the new principle view of our Chamber on this matter; if there is an agreement between the parties about the sharing of jewelry, the sharing is carried out according to this agreement. If there is no agreement between the parties on the sharing of jewelry, if the existence of local customs and traditions is claimed and proven, the sharing is carried out according to this rule. Otherwise, everything given to men and women and carrying economic value is, as a rule, their own. However, if there is something specific to the opposite sex (specific to women or men) among the gifts, it is considered given to that sex. If there is a dispute about being specific, an expert examination should be conducted if necessary. If it is determined as a result of the expert examination that that thing is specific to both sexes, that thing belongs to the spouse to whom it was given.
Regarding the ownership of the item with economic value placed in the jewelry box/bag; if the thing placed is specific to a woman or a man, it is considered given to that sex, if it is determined that that thing is specific to both sexes, it should be accepted as common. The dispute should be resolved in accordance with these principles, taking into account the claims and defenses of the parties. It should be stated immediately that the burden of proof falls on the person claiming or defending a situation contrary to the normal flow of life.
In lawsuits for jewelry receivable, it is usual for jewelry specific to women to be under the protection of the female spouse. The female spouse claiming the contrary is obliged to prove her claim. In the jewelry lawsuit, the existence of the gold in question and the fact that this gold is not with the female spouse should be proven beyond doubt.'
Keşfet ile ziyaret ettiğin tüm kategorileri tek akışta gör!
Test
Gündem
Magazin
Video
Send Comment